I as con will be arguing that Obama has done more harm than good as President. Pro will be arguing that he has done more good than harm.

Harm as in a negative affect.
Good as in a positive affect.
Thus Con will be arguing that the negatives of Obama's presidency out weigh the positives. Pro will be arguing that the positives of Obama's presidency out weigh the negatives.

(3) This is about his presidency not his career as a politician. Both debaters can refer, bring up quotes, or actions etc... about his past. But they can't bring up good/bad things he has done in the past and use that as a way to support the negatives/positives.

“In the first 19 months of the Obama administration, the federal debt held by the public increased by $2.5260 trillion, which is more than the cumulative total of the national debt held by the public that was amassed by all U.S. presidents from George Washington through Ronald Reagan.”

Just the interest rate on America’s debt is as much as we make. Obama MUST stop spending so much money and concentrate on the economies dire state. Obama however doesn’t seem to have the economy as one of his top priorities. He does what other countries have done. He prints more, more, and more money. This causes inflation. It greatly devalues the dollar, and hurts America’s ability to trade with other countries.

China and other big marketing countries like Arab countries may stop wanting to trade with America in the future.

That’s the same thing Zimbabwe did. They were considered the bread basket of Africa, until inflation came along. Now they are probably the worse off country in the continent. You have to pay millions of Zim dollars just to buy bread.

Obama care is completely unaffordable. Yet it has been one of Obama’s top priorities during his campaign.

People keep saying the government should just take more from the rich but that will hardly work. If we took all the wealth from everyone who has $500,000 and up that would hardly make a dent in the debt. It would only be billions of dollars. Not the trillions that we need.

Unemployment:

Obama does not promote small businesses which promote work. He over taxes people and businesses so that they can’t hire workers as easily. He raises the minimum wage, which discourages employers from employing.

Welfare for the most part is a bad thing. It supports laziness, and getting paid for doing nothing, and it gives money for people to buy drugs. Not all people who are on welfare are like that, but there are many. Baltimore (where I live) has one of the worst crime rates in America, and many people are on welfare. These people should be out looking for jobs, but they don’t need too so they don’t have anything to do. They need to be kept busy.

Many people take welfare And it adds a lot to our debt. It takes the tax payers money, who often don’t agree with it. Obama fully supports welfare and promotes it.

Tax payers money: Did you know tax payers are paying for Obama’s vacations?

Earlier last year Obama’sfamily had a trip to Spain that cost millions. They flew first class, and stayed in a 5 star hotel and guess what they even invited their friends along too. This was all paid for buy the tax payers. I know millions of dollars does nothing to dent our economy, but this is just ridiculous. An already over taxed people have to pay for the presidents expensive vocation.

On debt: First off, if we look at my opponent's source and compare it to other articles on the same site, there are contradictions in the amount of debt. Here [10] for example it says $3 trillion whist here [11] it says $2 trillion. How can we trust a source that contradicts itself? Also, it may be true that the debt was lower before Reagan but we must remember, in todays economy we buy more goods from other countries and thus the debt will inevitably increase. Also, if we look at how our monetary system is set up, debt is inevitable from the creation of money.[12]

On Obama care: First off my opponent provides no warrants or evidence for this claim, just that it "is completely unfordable."

On gas prices: My opponent claims that it was Obama that has raised the gas prices but there are a few problems with this claim, a) if you look at his evidence there is no warrants at all. It just says they have increased. That is akin to me finding a blogpost where someone says they have decreased. Done. b) If you look at a graph of oil prices of the last 14 years, a steady increase in price is shown and thus there is no reason to assume that it was Obama that has increased gas prices.[1]

My opponent then claims that taxing the rich wouldn't stop the debt but that is irrelevant seeing as, as my opponent says, "It would only be billions of dollars." which is a huge amount. Also what must be noted is that my opponent is trying to make it so our current president must eliminate debt but this is an unfair notion. There has been 1 time in American history when we have been completely debt free and that was with Andrew Jackson after he stopped the Federal Bank. It is unfair to assume that Obama's job is to eliminate debt seeing as it simply can't be done without the abolishment of the federal bank.[2]

Unemployment: The claim that Obama does not support small business is just not true in the least. Obama and Biden laid out a specific plan to help small businesses.[3]

Then my opponent posts a video showing rising unemployment but this is what is known as a causality fallacy. There are a) no warrants as to how/if Obama is actually increasing unemployment and there is no evidence to assume so. Conversely, Obama has actually decreased unemployment by 4 points.[4]

Regarding Welfare: First off my opponent provides no evidence as to why welfare is bad, just that it is. Secondly, if we are criticizing welfare why are we not criticizing it's founder, FDR? Nextly, it's not just anyone who gets welfare, you must have certain requirements and usually the help is in the form of child support ect[5] Another important point which kills the argument that the people can be lazy is thusly:
"The criteria for these welfare benefits are that the heads of household are working to obtain job training which will enable them to leave the welfare programs."[5]
And even if we ignore everything that I have said and go with your assertion that welfare is bad, just because Obama supports it does not mean he has done harm. He wasn't the one who started it.

Regarding taxpayer's money: This is true. My opponent's claim is correct (I believe, further evidence may be uncovered but we can say this is true)

Regarding insults: I can find no evidence for this and my opponent provides none.

Regarding socialism:
Some people claim: "Obama's a socialist!" The claim is humorous by itself but with tea partiers chanting it, it takes on a very negative connotation. The assumption is made that socialism is a bad economic system, but we will get to that later. We must first examine the claim that Obama is, indeed, a socialist.
1: Just think about it. America is one of the closet countries to being a full, market (capitalist) economy. If you are running to be the president of a republic that is built off the free market, you are not going to be a socialist. It is illogical. And even if you were, you wouldn't be able to push your "socialist agenda" through congress. It's ludicrous to say Obama's a socialist or, assuming he was, that he would be able to push his agenda through a congress full of capitalists.
2: But let's assume he is a socialist and that he could, in fact push his agenda through congress and make America a socialist country. Is that inherently bad? Not in the least. Considering we (a country with enormous influence over other countries) are in an economic recession caused by fat cat capitalists, we would assume other countries' economies are going down the pooper as well. In some regards that is true but there are quite a few that are minimally affected by this economic downturn. Those are either countries that produce massive amounts of goods [China and India] or are socialist/social democracies. Australia, a country that uses a social partnership economy, is the country that is surviving the economic recession the best. Odd isn't it, a country that is based around socialism is surviving the economic crisis the best.
3: We will now look at the satisfaction with the health care system in America (capitalist) and Canada (a social democracy). In Canada, 57% of people are very satisfied with the affordability and availability of the health care system compared to the 26% of Americans who are either "somewhat satisfied or satisfied". Inversely, 76% of Americans are dissatisfied with the health care system in America says Rick Blizzard D.B.A.
(Figures may vary)

So as we can see, socialism isn't a bad system at all considering a) The country least affected by the economic recession is Australia (a social partnership) and b) People in countries that use some form of social health care are noticeably more satisfied with their system than those without it.

So please, even if we go with the insane claim that "Obama's a socialist", socialism it isn't a bad system at all. If America became a social democracy it might even help.[6][7]

Offense: Now we will be asking, what has Obama done and has it been good? Well first off Obama saved the collapse of the automotive industry, he has shifted focus to the main threat of terrorism, Afghanistan, he has actually relaxed anti-american tensions around the globe, he has promoted more efficient and cleaner cars ect. Full list here: [8]
He has also been communicating with the Muslim world and to better our image and brining back the Freedom of Information act.[9]

I could provide you with a huge list of good things Obama has done but I don't think that is necessary as of yet. What my opponent must do is defend his claims and then refute mine. I await his response.

Qote from source- "Thirty-seven percent of Americans support the measure, with 59 percent opposed. That's basically unchanged from last March, when 39 percent supported the law and 59 percent opposed the measure."

He hurts small businesses with his over taxing.

Lowering the minimum wage would encourage people to hire. And so would lowering the taxes. The harder life is the less likely it is a person will hire.

Obama makes it harder for people to employ that is how he is increasing the unemployment. I already stated this but my opponent states there is no warrant of how he is increasing unemployment

“My opponent then claims that taxing the rich wouldn't stop the debt but that is irrelevant seeing as, as my opponent says, "It would only be billions of dollars." which is a huge amount. "

This taking my words out of context.

I said take ALL the money from everyone with $500,000 up. Now of course the government would not take all the money from every one with $500,000 and up. He would only take a very small fraction of that. I was just showing that even if we took all the money from the rich it would not do much. And Billions is a small amount if you compare it to our debt. Just say we got fifty billion (probably would be less) that would be very little if compared to the trillions we need.

" Also what must be noted is that my opponent is trying to make it so our current president must eliminate debt but this is an unfair notion. There has been 1 time in American history when we have been completely debt free and that was with Andrew Jackson after he stopped the Federal Bank. It is unfair to assume that Obama's job is to eliminate debt seeing as it simply can't be done without the abolishment of the federal bank.[2]”

It was never my intention to make it sound like. I was not trying to say he should pay it all off. I agree that would be ridiculous. But he has to start paying off the debt, or it will be our children’s children paying it off, instead of our children. He spends way to much as I have shown. Which is a big reason why his approval rating has dropped so much.

“Secondly, if we are criticizing welfare why are we not criticizing it's founder, FDR?”

I would criticize FDR but as this debate has nothing to do with him I refrained from doing so. I don't really get pro's point.

you must have certain requirements and usually the help is in the form of child support ect[5] Another important point which kills the argument that the people can be lazy is thusly:

People take advantage of this. They will have more kids to get welfare. They won’t marry the man they have the kids with, because a single mother will get more benafits than a mother who has a husband, and it gives money for drugs. Lets face it people are lazy. If they have the chance to get money without working they will take it, and make it so that it is kept that way.

"The criteria for these welfare benefits are that the heads of household are working to obtain job training which will enable them to leave the welfare programs."[5]

That is partly true a good honest person would go look for a job while he is getting paid by the government. But there are many millions of poor people in America you can’t assume every one is going to be honest.

Regarding insults: I can find no evidence for this and my opponent provides none.

I did provide evidence for this. He insulted our biggest allies by giving unusable DVDs. After they gave us priceless gifts. And he sent a letter to the former president of France instead of the current president.

If you are running to be the president of a republic that is built off the free market, you are not going to be a socialist.

Obama and the press hid the fact that he was socialist.

About socialist countries prospering: I guess it all depends on who is the head of the socialist government.

If a good man is president socialism may be good, for a while. But socialism gives a lot of power to the government. It is inevitable that we will have bad presidents.

And I think my sources indicate at the very least that he supports socialists and socialist organizations.

Quote from source-"The lower unemployment rate...came not only because more people found jobs, but also because 260,000 had given up looking and ceased being counted as unemployed."

My opponents own source states that the ones who have given up looking are not counted as unemployed. Doesn’t this prove that the unemployment rate is being under exaggerated and is actually even higher than it is said to be? I had already read about that fact but didn’t do any research on it so I’m glad this source talked about it.

I have one major objection to my opponents statements of the positive things Obama has done. Neither he nor his source have properly backed up his claims.

I find that source unreliable as it uses no examples. For example it says “saved wall street” it doesn’t say how Obama saved wall street. Obama actually blames wall street for stuff quite a lot. I’m not asking my opponent to explain this, I’m just showing the unreliability of his source. Also some of those so called “good things” it states he has done are ridiculous. Like winning the Nobel peace prize. It was way to early in his presidency for him to get a Nobel peace prize.

“he has actually relaxed anti-american tensions around the globe,”

Neither he nor the source provided any evidence of this. And I showed how our biggest allies have been clearly insulted by Obama.

“he has shifted focus to the main threat of terrorism, Afghanistan,”

It was my thought that my opponent disagreed on the war in Afghanistan. As he even did a debate on it. So the question is should he be able to state that as a good thing if he argues it to be a bad thing in other debates?

About welfare: All my opponent really does to negate the fact that people on welfare must be working towards a job is to say //That is partly true a good honest person would go look for a job while he is getting paid by the government. But there are many millions of poor people in America you can't assume every one is going to be honest.// but this is pointless. It has nothing to do with honesty, the law requires that you are working towards a job and the government can check where you've applied to see if you are telling the truth. My opponent has not negated this fact at all and his entire argument against welfare rests solely on people being lazy yet we have shown this is not true thus his argument is negated.

On insults: You provided no evidence regarding the DVDs, merely about the former French President. Regarding the letter, the Boots and Sabers source doesn't even say Obama sent the letter, it just says his administration AND it doesn't say that they were insulted. What my opponent has done here is he powertagged his evidence saying that it says X when in fact it just says a fact. Regarding his StoptheACLU link that also never mentions that the French were offended and here we can see my opponent powertagged his evidence again which is intellectually dishonest.

"Obama and the press hid the fact that he was socialist."
What?? You have no credible evidence to support this at all.

"About socialist countries prospering: I guess it all depends on who is the head of the socialist government."
Incorrect, socialist countries are statistically better off. My opponent has not negated this and thus it flows across.

"If a good man is president socialism may be good, for a while. But socialism gives a lot of power to the government. It is inevitable that we will have bad presidents."
Here an unwarranted assumption is made and also my evidence regarding the benefits of socialism is ignored...
Also if you look at his "evidence" it proves nothing at all. Just because he appointed people who are supposedly socialist doesn't make him one. This evidence is sh!t. You have proven nothing here and thus this point falls.

"Quote from source-"The lower unemployment rate...came not only because more people found jobs, but also because 260,000 had given up looking and ceased being counted as unemployed.""
What source? Also, if you are not looking for a job and still don't have one, by definition you are unemployed. I don't know what you are getting at here.

Regarding my evidence: Yeah it has no warrants *sarcasm*. Here it says:
"Saved the collapse of the American automotive industry by making GM restructure before bailing them out, and putting incentive money to help the industry"
This is talking about how he saved the auto industry. I
"It was my thought that my opponent disagreed on the war in Afghanistan. As he even did a debate on it. So the question is should he be able to state that as a good thing if he argues it to be a bad thing in other debates?"
Stuff from my previous rounds is not fair game to use here. Regardless of whether I personally agree with the war in Afghanistan has no bearing upon this debate. My evidence stands for itself.
My opponent dropped "he has promoted more efficient and cleaner cars" which does have warrants because he gave government incentives.
"Has made education a national priority by putting emphasis and money behind new ideas like charter schools, but speaking directly to school children in telling them they have to do their part." *Same site* Here is another example of warranted evidence. My opponent has no offense on my advantages. He also dropped gas prices and thus it becomes an advantage to me.

Regarding debt/Obama care: Obama care is also a benefit to the underprivileged peoples. Obama care is good because 1) it stops people from taking advantage of preexisting conditions, decreased medical mistakes, advanced research, better prenative care and expanded coverage.[1] These all save human lives and human lives outweigh cost. He is saving massive amounts of lives and thus it is a good thing. You are correct regarding my argument about billions. I misread what you wrote.

Overview: My opponent dropped gas prices, cleaner and more efficient cars, and his evidence regarding debt is without warrants. My opponent also has failed to negate my socialism good argument and has ignored my Obama good evidence whilst claiming it is "unreliable" but provides no evidence to back this claim up. My welfare argument stands and so does my automotive industry argument. I await his responses.

"He hurts small businesses with his over taxing."
Evidence? My opponent ignored my evidence saying that this is not true thus it flows across.
[1] http://www.ehow.com...

About welfare. the government are not going to check up on every person whose on welfare. Like I said I live in Baltimore and it is has one of the worst crime rates in America, and lots of people are on welfare.
It's not at all hard to take advantage of welfare. Even if you do apply for a job it's not hard at allto make sure you don't get it.

Pro say my whole argument on welfare is because of laziness. Well he clearly has ignored my statements that it gives money for drugs, and that it supports crime thus those arguments flow to my side.

This is the second time I think pro has said I provide no evidence regarding Obama and Great Britain but I did provide evidence. I said the link was in the comment section where it is shows an 8 minute video, which it appears may opponent either ignores, didn’t watch, or doesn’t think it counts as evidence (which it does).

And I am sure the people (or at least some of the people) of France and Britain are insulted by Obama’s rudeness. A country will get offended if their bigges allies respond to their generosity with petty gifts. And further more it hurts Americas image.

My opponent ignores the part of my argument (which my opponent calls s***) that at the very least Obama supports socialists and socialist organizations.

"Obama and the press hid the fact that he was socialist."
What?? You have no credible evidence to support this at all.

If you use common knowledge it makes perfect sense. Obama knows that America would not except him as president so he is smart enough to hide the fact. The media obviously support Obama so their not going to show the fact that he’s socialist (or supports socialism).

"Quote from source-"The lower unemployment rate...came not only because more people found jobs, but also because 260,000 had given up looking and ceased being counted as unemployed.""What source? Also, if you are not looking for a job and still don't have one, by definition you are unemployed. I don't know what you are getting at here.

Umm…the source that I posted right above the quote. People are not counted as unemployed when they are unemployed that’s my point. So like I said the unemployment has been lied about.

Stuff from my previous rounds is not fair game to use here. Regardless of whether I personally agree with the war in Afghanistan has no bearing upon this debate. My evidence stands for itself.

In other words my opponent is changes his beliefs to suite him best. He knows I support the war, so he says it’s a good thing. Even though he says it’s a bad thing.

"Has made education a national priority by putting emphasis and money behind new ideas like charter schools, but speaking directly to school children in telling them they have to do their part."

But the question is has our education system been improved by Obama. No it has not.

Actually I find most pople complain about the education standard. So Obama hasn’t really done much for our education. So all Obama has done is tried to raise the standard of education; which he has not done.

I have shown that some of my arguments on welfare have been unrefuted.

So I think it is safe to assume my opponent agrees that Obama has over taxed America. And thus it is safe to say the ability for businesses to hire people

easily, has been undermined.

Regarding debt/Obama care: Obama care is also a benefit to the underprivileged peoples. Obama care is good because 1) it stops people from taking advantage of preexisting conditions, decreased medical mistakes, advanced research, better prenative care and expanded coverage.[1] These all save human lives and human lives outweigh cost. He is saving massive amounts of lives and thus it is a good thing. You are correct regarding my argument about billions. I misread what you wrote.

First thing my my opponent did not even bring up debt. But only talked about health care. He provide reasons why Obama care is good. So I’ll provide reasons why it is bad and we will let the viewers decide which one they think out weighs the other.

1.As I have shown the majority of the public (59%) do not agree with Obama care. I think it should be approved by the public before it is used.

2.Even though Obama says people won’t lose their insurance, millions of people

//About welfare. the government are not going to check up on every person whose on welfare.//
Says who? You have no evidence to support that and my evidence says they will...

// Like I said I live in Baltimore and it is has one of the worst crime rates in America, and lots of people are on welfare.//
Where is you link? You have no evidence that shows that welfare is the cause. There are much more probable alternate causes such as gangs and low socio economic conditions, not welfare.

//It's not at all hard to take advantage of welfare. Even if you do apply for a job it's not hard at allto make sure you don't get it.//
Yes and if you don't get it you must continue to find a job and if you don't then something is obviously wrong.

//Pro say my whole argument on welfare is because of laziness. Well he clearly has ignored my statements that it gives money for drugs, and that it supports crime thus those arguments flow to my side.//
You have no evidence to support this. You are making the claim that it gives money for drugs which is an extremely biased and stereotypical view. My opponent has not proven anything regarding welfare whilst obviously ignoring the fact that the government makes sure it is used for certain things. Therefore I win the welfare debate.

I am sorry. I missed the video in the comments. Please forgive me.
The interesting thing about this video though is that it doesn't say that the prime minister was offended.
Nextly, this is not Obama's fault but the people whose job it is to check these things. (as Glenn says)
And also the movies were classic American History movies. Again I am sorry that I missed the video earlier.

Regarding Insults: Anyone can be insulted by anything. For example a white supremacist in England could be offended because we elected an African American but that doesn't mean we did anything bad. You have failed to give evidence that the people who were supposedly insulted actually felt offended. Seeing as this is the case my opponent's argument falls.

Regarding the hiding of socialism: I could say that Obama is a Nazi but the press hid it because we wouldn't vote for him. Both claims here have the same amount of validity but the BOP is on you to prove he is a socialist which you have failed to do.

//People are not counted as unemployed when they are unemployed that's my point.//
People are not counted as unemployed when they are unemployed....
........
.....
Does this make sense to anyone else? Also, there actually is no source. If you look in the speech he said this in, the only link above the quote is a new article and if you crtl-f for those exact words nothing comes up. hmmmmmm

Here my opponent dropped my Socialism good argument and thus it flows through and I win this.

//In other words my opponent is changes his beliefs to suite him best. He knows I support the war, so he says it's a good thing. Even though he says it's a bad thing.//
I am debating on the side that Obama did a good thing. I think it's bad we killed civilians but it's good we stopped terrorists. Is that so hard to understand? I am allowed to change my opinions.

//But the question is has our education system been improved by Obama. No it has not.

Actually I find most pople complain about the education standard. So Obama hasn't really done much for our education. So all Obama has done is tried to raise the standard of education; which he has not done.//
Evidence? None.
My evidence says he emphasized education and that part has went uncontested, just the success was contested and thus my original argument flows across.

//I have shown that some of my arguments on welfare have been unrefuted.//
False, look at the previous rounds.

Obama has taxed America but so has any other president. Let me also remind you that the purpose was to debate whether he had done MORE harm or MORE good. If I agree on one thing doesn't mean you win.

//And thus it is safe to say the ability for businesses to hire people

//As I have shown the majority of the public (59%) do not agree with Obama care. I think it should be approved by the public before it is used.//
Yet my evidence shows it's good.
//Even though Obama says people won't lose their insurance, millions of people will//
Evidence? None?
// More taxes and less liberty.//
How? Liberty is defined as "The state of being free within society from oppressive restrictions imposed by authority on one's way of life.". This is not an oppressive restriction, much less a restriction at all and thus this argument falls.
//As I showed earlier it costs $700 billion per year.//
And I showed it is beneficial. You have provided no impact to this either.
//Will hurt thousands of small businesses//
No evidence and no impact.
//The government control peoples medical treatments.//
That's what medicad is already...and is that bad? No.

(if the evidence is in the link from "Hotair" i have not found it. I am sorry if it's there but that is irrelevant seeing as my case still stands.)

//////Overview\\\\\\\My opponent dropped gas prices, cleaner and more efficient cars, and his evidence regarding debt is without warrants. My opponent also has failed to negate my socialism good argument and has ignored my Obama good evidence whilst claiming it is "unreliable" but provides no evidence to back this claim up. My welfare argument stands and so does my automotive industry argument. Thus it strongly urge a Pro ballot.
Thanks Phantom :)

With the agreed-upon shared burden of proof, Pro needed to establish a list of good things the President had accomplished, and he made only a slight attempt at that. Thus knocking out half of Con's contentions was still short of proving that Obama was more good than bad.

Con claimed that Obama failed to disclose socialist plans. Pro agreed but argued socialism is good. However, failure to disclose is still bad. He would have lost the election had he honestly disclosed, so that was a serious fraud.

Con had more S&G errors, enough to start to be annoying. suite > suit etc.

In a debate, there is absolutely no obligation to maintain a position held in another debate. Debaters are free to play devils advocate, change their opinion, or talk out of both sides of their mouth in preparation for a career as a lawyer.

With respect to sources, a weak source is better than no source. An unsupported non-expert opinion is worthless, but even blogs sometimes reference factual data. It's better to counter with a stronger source. In a number of places it was clear Pro didn't have a contrary source at all, and so was posturing.

blackvoid
Pro said he agreed with over taxation so how can you say that is unwarranted?
And if your talking about Obamacare I did show that was unafordable by saying it cost 700billion per year.
Did you even read the whole debate?

I was interested to read this. I've been subject to fox talk news radio, or in my opinion the 4th american reich propaganda express. With my stance politically I'm in a bind where I do not necessarily agree with the president but I certainly do not agree with the right at all.

America has become a capitalist nation and when you put pen to paper the socialist party is pretty pinpoint polar opposite of capitalist beliefs. It's sad because capitalists wouldn't shudder to out themselves. Only the people at the very top, a mere 2% benefit greatly from the economy the way it is and the network laid out. However that 2% controls the vast majority of the "work force". Everyone needs to step back and get a level look at the playing field. They want you to buy into the idea of "the american dream" so you can put forth your best effort into becoming the top 2% which will never work unless you know somebody within that population, even then they have to be willing to help you. And it's no wonder with our country in the deficit that it is we can expect no help/charity as it would not even be an issue.

If we could go back to working with labor unions and the rich kicking in over half of their income to tax dollars(it's been done previously some 80 years ago before and it worked quite well), they would still have enough to live quite comfortably and start to level the playing field for the rest of the population so everyone is contributing fairly in the long run. This has worked in Germany, Japan, etc. all countries America has helped rebuild following the ground work of the proposed 2nd bill of rights.

It all comes down to greed and corruption, these people are quite comfortable when they sleep at night and who wouldn't be on 2000 thread count sheets in one of their five, multi-million dollar manors. Anyone supporting these ideas has been blinded by the thought of the almighty, and rapidly depreciating, dollar by buying into corrupt propaganda from corrupt people

"""//People are not counted as unemployed when they are unemployed that's my point.//
People are not counted as unemployed when they are unemployed....
........
.....
Does this make sense to anyone else? Also, there actually is no source. If you look in the speech he said this in, the only link above the quote is a new article and if you crtl-f for those exact words nothing comes up. hmmmmmm""""

Peter I emphasized in the third round that it was the source you used in the previous round that talked about it.

Reasons for voting decision: This debate had many contentions on both sides. It's a lot easier to track the debate if they are numbered. Each must be argued and supported or refuted by evidence. Both sides were hit or miss. Both agreed to accept a burden of proof. That means that Pro had to claim and prove that Obama did many good things. He was too content just attempting to refute Con. Pro granted that Obama failed to disclose his socialist intent, arguing instead they are good.